Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There was one decision last night where joe westerman had the ball and matty Ashurst ran through didn’t obstruct anyone but westerman ran behind him, penalty given for not surrendering to the tackle. Similar tonight involving Tommy makinson for saints , nobody obstructed but penalty given. Am I right in thinking the nrl have stopped this? As long as there’s no advantage gained you can play on? Seems wrong to me..

  • Like 2
f3gms4.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

I don’t know the rules of Rugby League anymore.

As a social experiment, I would like to get two teams and play a game of Rugby League and referee it as it is written in the laws of the game.  I would love to see if we enjoyed it.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As a social experiment, I would like to get two teams and play a game of Rugby League and referee it as it is written in the laws of the game.  I would love to see if we enjoyed it.

I would guess that the game would be 2 hours long and you'd blow the pee out of your whistle 🙂 

Wibble

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh don’t get me started. I thought you were allowed to steal the ball one on one, but apparently not if the attacker has broken through the line. New rules every week.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, weloveyouwakefield2 said:

There was one decision last night where joe westerman had the ball and matty Ashurst ran through didn’t obstruct anyone but westerman ran behind him, penalty given for not surrendering to the tackle. Similar tonight involving Tommy makinson for saints , nobody obstructed but penalty given. Am I right in thinking the nrl have stopped this? As long as there’s no advantage gained you can play on? Seems wrong to me..

I thought they'd reduced the obstruction calls if no-one was actually obstructed a few years ago.

For me, the referee should identify at least one player who was obstructed when giving a decision. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

I don’t know the rules of Rugby League anymore.

No one ever did though a fair few folk like to imagine they're the only ones that do.

Although Rule 345~B section five : No Opponent can steal a ball from a player who's broken through the line except on the third Friday in a month with an R in it is my all time personal favourite.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And apparently, the attacker falling to the floor when running around the back of another attacker negates the penalty. Sometimes you even here the referee say 'go down'.

That is not in the laws of the game. Once upon a time, it may even have been called a voluntary tackle and the attacker penalised for that.

The laws of the sport are inconsistently applied, sometimes we make them up and sometimes ignore others. A total mess. 

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Rugby League's Road to Nowhere

Link to post
Share on other sites

At Leigh we see new interpretations go against us every week, ''WTH was that for'' is now the most common phrase on matchdays. Last week we found out you can knock a ball back (attack) with your foot on the floor out of play, its even endorsed by the In Goal 2 feet away.

Edited by sweaty craiq
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the letter of the law the Ref's were right to give the penalties, I think the fault lies in how the Ref's have been told to interpret the rule. In both the instances mentioned, nobody was obstructed and the attacking team didn't gain an advantage directly from it, so the game should have just played on

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer RL to have more of a Soccer interpretation of obstruction. Only if a player in motion wilfully cuts across the line between teammate and opponent is it deemed obstruction. In RL, we apply this in relation to kick reception, why not in other circumstances? We`re foregoing more intricate patterns of play in exchange for rigid clarity.

Why is it unacceptable to run behind your own player, if that player remains static and defenders can adjust?  It`s become increasingly hard for full-backs to pick out a line on kick returns without risking an obstruction call.

Like a lot of rigid interpretations, there`s a ratcheting effect. In lower-grade Aussie games this year I`ve seen players penalised for running back across the ruck. Even seen the dummy-half penalised allegedly for using the tackled player as a block. In all these cases the player deemed to be obstructing hadn`t moved. The contact was initiated by the defender, who then threw up their arms demanding a penalty.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Oxford said:

Although Rule 345~B section five : No Opponent can steal a ball from a player who's broken through the line except on the third Friday in a month with an R in it is my all time personal favourite.

That rule was amended to only be 31 day month’s with an ‘R’ in it dummy

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That rule was amended to only be 31 day month’s with an ‘R’ in it dummy

Well I heard the International Rules say this only applied at Christmas, Eid and Hannukah and other holidays had to apply in writing. so there, slow coach!

  • Haha 2

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...